Drama stems from conflict, in which a protagonist leads the way to face various obstacles, including all opposing forces led by opponents, and through his series of choices and actions, will eventually lead to the end of whether the problem can be solved.
The narrator of "Ba" is Julie Delpy, but she is not the protagonist. The protagonist is Adam Goldberg, who comes to Paris, feels uncomfortable, makes a series of jokes, and almost leads to a breakdown. His opponent is naturally Julie Delpy.
This can be seen in the sequence in which the performers are introduced in the opening credits, Adam Goldberg is the first to be typed before Julie Delpy.
In other words, at least in the early stages of the script's conception, the writers and directors consciously made the story develop around Adam Goldberg, a Yankee who came to Paris.
But what about the result of the film? Presumably only the joke revolves around Adam Goldberg, who doesn't get the attention (including emotional engagement) he deserves as a lead role, and the audience's eyes are on Julie Delpy.
But what's wrong with looking at Julie Delpy? We were going to see her.
Of course, we'd be quite entertained just watching Julie Delpy, but it certainly wasn't enough.
There are two reasons for dissatisfaction, the first of which is naturally the destroyed dramatic logic. We can't get into the emotional world of the actor (Adam Goldberg), and have no expectations for what he's going to do, how the plot develops (what every playwright does is how to retain the audience) expect). So there was only one gag show left in the process. For the ups and downs of love between men and women at the end of the scene, except for feeling hypocritical and losing patience, everything became irrelevant.
Second, when we put all our attention on Julie Delpy, we only have a feeling of indifference. Since she is not the protagonist in the script design at all, she will not make any active changes and corresponding actions on the obstacles in front of her. All we see is that she maintains her character all the time, and our own false expectations that, once again, we can't really invest in Julie Delpy except for Adam Goldberg.
The author believes this, and Julie Delpy, who is the director, also realizes it, and this is why a showdown between men and women at the end will be silenced and replaced with a long series of Julie Delpy monologues. Through the voice of the female lead, the director made the last and most helpless rescue, trying to directly show the viewers the feelings and thoughts of the female lead, and save a little touch of instant food for the ending that everyone has become indifferent.
And the so-called hypocrisy is probably like this.
The author's comments above seem to criticize the film as worthless. Isn't it said that this film can be seen as a cultural gender war? Isn't it interesting that this film takes into account the cultural differences between the United States and the United States?
The author's personal feeling is that the cultural difference jokes made by the editor and director are too mean, not deep enough, and too blatantly vulgar. Most of them are chasing after extremely rigid concepts and lack sharp insights.
But there is one thing that has to be brought up, which may be an explanation for the film's unsatisfactory performance.
According to an interview with Julie Delpy, she only met Adam Goldberg 12 hours before the film started, and because of financial constraints, most of the scenes were shot in one shot.
Perhaps because of such constraints, Julie Delpy, as the director, tried to avoid Adam Goldberg's play as much as possible, so that the above-mentioned deficiencies appeared.
So unfortunately, after walking out of the movie theater, I was left with only two very deep impressions: Adam Goldberg's idiot-like smile and Julie Delpy's wandering look busy thinking about other things.
View more about Two Days in Paris reviews
